New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
BuyVM Problem
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Actually if the client had talked to Aldryic and quit breaking the TOS it's likely he would have worked it out and let it slide.
Trying to get around him doesn't do anything but make him go by the book.
Franicsco
I find it good to be flexible but not necessarily as a rule. Make the rules harsh, then you can cite them when you need to be harsh because someone is trying to take advantage of you. But correct me if I'm wrong, don't you have more people handling support than BuyVM? I can understand the need for just making it as close to an automated system as you can get while being human controlled, only so much time in a day.
@CVPS_Chris - if you have an agreement to provide a certain amount of notice, pay for invoices when they are due, etc. then it's your responsibility to educate yourself about the process and follow the rules.
You can't just walk away from a lease on a flat, or a car, in most cases not even your mobile service. Just because you're buying something online for a few $ doesn't make it any different even if it seems so.
I think it's certainly an area where flexibility based on the circumstances/customer is warranted. Personally I think @travisapple seems like a nice guy and probably didn't intentionally not pay-- I also think that given the amount of fraud the buyvm guys deal with they're a bit jaded and may have pulled the trigger too quickly.
So could have/should have, still doesn't change the facts.
Did you see the images I gave? That's at the top of every account when you login and have an invoice due.
There's no way he didn't see it because it's os freakin' huge.
I'm willing to give some slack and so is Aldryic, but jeez.
Francisco
@Francisco - yeah, people get confused easily though. Or they think things like "i stopped using it so it will cancel itself" etc. They also sometimes don't get multiple accounts, or just change something if they can an error during signup to see if it will go through etc.
It's easy to have a jaded view of this, and there is a ton of abuse/fraud, but there are cases where the customer just doesn't understand the system and needs to be educated. I suspect that was the case here.
In that case, I take back what I said before.
Sorry Ponyman
when you cancel a service from buyvm, they give you pro-rated refund. that you can use to buy service in the future. I think they are one of the few host that does this.
You mean kind of like the $7 account credit I have with you that you refused to refund unless I filed a paypal dispute?
That is nice!
I think it's finished.
Welcome to LET everyone,
LET is a place where suddenly a secondary non affiliated provider to the current topic comes in and makes a simple one page topic blow up to lapse over multiple pages, during the process making both sides loose their cool, and everyone else eating popcorn in the background and egging them to continue. Please enjoy your stay at LET, where providers fight for you!
@Mun You know, providers are people too. We can disagree without it being a business strategy.
Maybe, but that isn't really it anymore. It literally erupts, and everyone comes to watch. and thus my post above.
Wasn't the $20 for an overdue invoice? It's only logical they subtract it if it is
@Francisco So what about his remaining service. It should only be right for you to provide him with a full month instead of only 7 days for $20?
In a legal point of view you can't charge for Service A without notification when a payment is made for Service B.
He can ticket billing for that and he'd just be given a credit for whatever is left or the service if that's the case
The account was past due, from our point of view he owed on the account. It's simple, if we refunded his $20 then his account would be in default and his whole account will be suspended. The invoice isn't going to go away and the system will make quick work of whatever active VM he has.
Francisco
I'm not sure where you are based (and its unlikely the op will followup), but certainly under UK and majority of EU territories, that would be considered illegal regardless of what you put in your ToS/contracts. You cannot take monies from payment of one set of services or goods and apply them to another debt.
In this case, understandably you chose not to provision the new service that the op paid for. Again, completely acceptable - but offering a partial refund isn't. Regardless of if he has a pre-existing deb't you owe him a full refund for the service that you chose not to provide.
Welp, tell ya' what.
We'll refund the $20, but his account will be going into default and his current VM will be suspended. There's also TOS violation fee's because he kept making so many accounts. If anything, we'll end up billing him for more than the $20.
The client has admitted to the fault and owes funds over it, it's really quite simple. He broke our TOS (the very TOS he agreed to) and agreed to whatever fee's we dictate.
I'm fairly sure that's where the majority of the $20 is going. $15 for the violation and whatever is left for the invoice.
Francisco
Not sure why you are being off with me. All i did was point out that, that would be unacceptable in some territories - incase you were not aware of it. Certainly I wouldn't want to be operating my businesses in a way that could cause me issues. Again as I said, depending on where you are based it may not be an issue.
Go for it, keep the money, you would still be in breach. Again, as I said the op likely wouldn't raise the issue as he had acknowledged fault. I was simply highlighting an issue that you may not be aware of.
Sounds the right thing to do. While $20 isn't a lot and not a big deal it's still the ethics behind it. + 1
The whole thread seems to have gone out of hand and it seems like a huge misunderstanding on OP's behalf.
We all know TOS don't mean anything when you just "tick a box" but can still land the provider some leverage over the case. $15 does for a duplicate account because OP was confused does seem a bit ridiculous.
I'm not trying to bash anyone, just going by what I think is right.
I have no say in the matter on this outside of just giving Aldryic more options. The fact, though, is he shouldn't just randomly tick things and nor should anyone.
It's a known fact, and has been for many years that our TOS is written in house and enforced to the T in every case - even when it means the client is right.
Our TOS is written the way it is to protect the company for clients that are pains in the butt and protects our clients from us billing them out the butt for random admin time or things like that.
It can't go both ways where the client gets all the perks and we have to just suck it up.
You do me a favor Nick, and next time someone signs up and pounds a DDOS in/out of your network or spams (read: in any way costs you money out of pocket due to cancellations, cleanup fees, overages, etc), you let me know if you're going to give that client a full refund.
While the client didn't do that, the client tied up stock that we couldn't sell to someone else. We're out of pocket.
I promise you, the one thing that this thread has done is made sure the OP will never randomly tick TOS boxes w/o actually reading it. I'm sure it'll be the same for many others.
Francisco
Ok, hold your horses.
This is a duplicate account and I'm not entirely sure how the DDOS popped up. Duplicate accounts are not something I would call malicious or illegal in anyway.
So be, the server used 7 days out of the 30. Return $15.33? The actual costs for you (at least before this thread the costs were much less). If the OP has come forth saying that it wasn't all a mistake then heck, don't refund it.
I'm sure 90% of people here don't read or only skim through the ToS of a host and put trust in that the company won't do anything bulls**t. I've always gone under the assumption that a ToS is only used as a guideline to PROTECT the company providing the service. Not to allow a client to pay for Service B and then subtract amount of Service A when Service B is refunded.
Again, I don't mean to bash. I only gave my opinion (freedom of speech) and you've given yours
3,1,4) Multiple accounts for any reason are strictly prohibited.
3,1,4,1) Any multiple accounts will be merged into the most recent account, and a 15,00$ TOS/AUP Violation Fine added to the account.
Francisco
The OP has a different side to the story where he says he was told by your staff that he committed fraud(?). You refunded the money and subtracted the $20 before even telling OP about the issue, I'm sure it would've been able to be sorted.
Multiple accounts is seen as a fraudulent thing is it not? Try it with a bank if you end up owing them money. "No no, you can't take funds from my other account!". They'll simply go "You're the same person and you owe us, period."
We provided the full log of everything he did between his two accounts a couple pages back incase you didn't backtrack that far into the thread. You can't "not" know you have an invoice due, there's a big ass image on the page that states so. The OP tried to order on that account where it was refused and then goes to make a new account to get around it.
"He didn't know" or things like that don't fly boss. He's fully aware, there is no language barrier here and his english is just fine. He admitted in the 2nd page as well that he 'had forgot' that he owned that VM.
The OP was also informed multiple times that multiple accounts aren't allowed. I'm fairly sure the ticket history Aldryic provided shows just that. With the OP's permission we could very well post the whole ticket.
Francisco
The boss is back!
It took you a while
Read the warning, pony's not back ;p
I was busy with dinner so I couldn't post a retort for a bit. Aldryic wanted to get things handled.
Fran
It's hard to be Francisco.
Ok, that's fine. I guess the OP did come here in a bit of a huff and some actions were made that didn't have to.
I was busy with dinner so I couldn't post a retort for a bit. Aldryic wanted to get things handled.
Fran
Still nice to see a post from him